Supreme Court of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #005

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 30th day of January, 2019, are as follows:

PER CURIAM:

2017-K-1490 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ISSA L. LAMIZANA, JR. (Parish of Orleans) 

The court of appeal reversed defendant’s convictions for 

aggravated rape and sentences of life imprisonment because it 

found the district court erred in quashing the subpoena of a 

Department of Children and Family Services investigator, who was 

the first person to interview the victims and their mother, and 

in refusing to allow the defense to call this investigator to 

testify at trial. We granted the State’s application to examine 

the correctness of that ruling. Upon additional review, however, 

it became apparent that the record is inadequate to make that 

determination. Therefore, we reverse the court of appeal, and 

remand to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing 

consistent with the views expressed here. After the district 

court conducts the evidentiary hearing, defendant can again 

appeal his convictions and sentences.

REVERSED AND REMANDED
01/30/19

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2017-K-1490

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ISSA L. LAMIZANA, JR.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL

FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

PER CURIAM

Defendant was found guilty of the aggravated rapes of his two stepchildren, 

La. R.S. 14:42, and the district court sentenced him to two terms of life 

imprisonment without parole eligibility. The court of appeal reversed the 

convictions and sentences because it found the district court erred in quashing the

subpoena of a Department of Children and Family Services investigator, who was 

the first person to interview the victims and their mother, and in refusing to allow 

the defense to call this investigator to testify at trial. State v. Lamizana, 16-1017 

(La. App. 4 Cir. 5/31/17), 222 So.3d 58. The court of appeal found that, although it 

could not “discern whether the testimony of [the investigator] or the records 

relating to her interview would undermine the credibility of the victims’ testimony 

and, if so, the extent to which the absence of [the investigator’s] testimony or 

records relating to her interview contributed to the verdict,” the trial court’s action 

nonetheless “undermines our confidence in the verdict.” Lamizana, 16-1017, pp. 

7–8, 222 So.3d at 63.

We granted the State’s application to examine the correctness of that ruling. 

Upon additional review, however, it became apparent that the record is inadequate 

to make that determination. No ruling by the district court judge regarding the 

subpoena appears in the record, and the circumstances under which the investigator 
2

appeared but was not permitted to testify are disputed. The investigator’s file also 

does not appear in the record. Although the defense made a general statement in 

the district court as to what the defense believed her testimony would prove, she 

was not called and her testimony was not proffered to the district court. Given 

these deficiencies in the record, we are unable to determine whether this witness 

was improperly excluded and what affect her exclusion had on the verdicts. See 

generally State v. Vaughn, 431 So.2d 358, 371 n.8 (1982) (on reh’g) (“[T]he 

appellate court, when reviewing an erroneous ruling that improperly excludes 

evidence, must be convinced that the excluded evidence would not have affected 

the jury’s determination.”).

During oral argument, the State agreed that the record was inadequate, and 

the State proposed in the interest of fairness and economy that the matter be 

remanded to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, at which the 

investigator can be called to testify and the parties can present additional evidence 

pertinent to the district court’s ruling. In light of the State’s reasonable proposal, 

we reverse the court of appeal, and remand to the district court to conduct an 

evidentiary hearing consistent with the views expressed here. After the district 

court conducts the evidentiary hearing, defendant can again appeal his convictions 

and sentences.

REVERSED AND REMANDED